The references to web pages of the Scottish
Wild Beaver Group in this article have, where available, been updated to
the new domain name.

With over a
year gone by since I last wrote about the free-living beavers of Tay, it
is time to give an update on what is continuing to be a sorry
embarrassment for the Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH).
It was always going to be difficult for SNH to resume their search and
trapping of the Tay beavers when they announced in February 2011 a
cessation until after the mating season began that Easter (1, 2). SNH
were still maintaining that there were only around 20 wild beavers in the
region, which it was attempting to capture, after claiming that their
release into the wild had been illegal. However, the local people around
the Tay, who had disagreed with the original decision to trap the beavers
(3) were getting themselves organised.

The first
meeting of the newly formed Scottish Wild Beaver Group (SWBG) was held in
Blairgowrie in January 2011 (1) on the back of the surge in support for
the Facebook group Save the Free Beavers of the Tay, set up shortly
after the trapping began, and bringing in 849 members in very quick time
(2, 4). In February, 22 people turned up at the second meeting of SWBG (5)
and as a result of the controversy surrounding the beavers,
Liam McArthur, MSP for the Orkney
Islands, had tabled a Written Question to the Scottish Executive, asking
“whether the (a) Tayside and (b) Knapdale beavers are legally termed as
(i) res nullius or (ii) private property” (6). The distinction is
between wild animals that nobody owns, like red deer (res nullius)
or domestic livestock like cattle that are private property. It was a
crucial question, because it could have tied the fate of the Tayside
beavers to those of the officially sanctioned reintroduction trial at
Knapdale, as beaver that are wild are considered to be strictly protected under the EU
Habitats Directive (see later). The answer from Scottish
Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham was indicative of the legal
muddle (7):“This would be a matter for the courts to
determine”

Liam McArthur had asked a series of
questions, including how many beavers had been captured in Tayside by SNH
and where each was kept; what legal basis would permit SNH to capture
beavers on land where landowners were not willing to give them access;
whether there was an exit strategy for the Knapdale beaver trial should it
find that the reintroduction of beavers is not appropriate and, if so, how
such a strategy would be implemented; and what assessment was made of the
impact on otters and other protected species by the trapping of beavers on
Tayside (8). The question about how many beavers had been trapped received
the answer of only one, and that it was being kept at Edinburgh Zoo (9).
Erica, as she was named by SWBG, became a cause célèbre (10) but she later
died in captivity (11, 12).

Perhaps his most important question
though was in asking what the criteria were for beavers to be permitted to
become established in the wild, because here again was a potential link to
the Knapdale Trial, as indeed was revealed by the answer from Cunningham
(13):
“The licence application by Scottish Wildlife Trust/Royal Zoological
Society of Scotland for the Knapdale Trial contains criteria for the
success or failure of the beaver trial. If the Knapdale trial is judged
successful these criteria could be used to inform the development of wider
criteria relating to the possible establishment of beavers in the wild”

The newly
formed SWBG moved fast, making an impact by announcing - even before
seeing the responses from Cunningham - that the order to trap escaped
beavers in Tayside could be challenged in the courts, drawing a response
from SNH who obviously were unsuspecting of such a challenge. SNH chief
executive Ian Jardine grandstanded a weak argument, considering the legal
muddle (14):"I'm afraid the presence of beavers on the Tay
undermines our credibility as a country in handling these things properly,
legally and democratically. You have to believe in upholding wildlife law
or not. You can't say we'll follow it when it suits us and not follow it
when it doesn't suit us"

On the
contrary, Louise Ramsay of SWBG responded (14):“This state of affairs was bringing conservation
in Scotland into international disrepute. [The government] should
recognise that what we have is a de facto reintroduction, but that any
problems can be dealt with sensibly as they are in other countries in the
EU"

It was the
Group’s belief that the Tay beavers were protected by European law -
whether legally introduced into the wild or not - and it had been
preparing to take action to "clarify" the legal position. The Group was
also concerned about the implications of SNH advice to landowners that the
beavers could be legally killed, and said there were "persistent rumours"
that two had already been shot near Meigle. SNH confirmed that it had told
landowners it was not illegal to shoot the beavers, but said it was not
encouraging this action. Rather, they were advising landowners to contact
SNH so that they could trap the beavers.

The SWBG
swiftly followed up with a briefing paper on the Tay Beavers for the
Scottish Government that explained that they were a new group in the
process of forming into a company limited by guarantee with charitable
status (5). Its objectives would be:- To educate communities, farmers and landowners about the advantages of
beavers and wetlands, and help to manage any problems that may arise
- To liase with government, NGOs, landowners and volunteer groups to
promote the improvement of riparian woodland in Scotland
- To study and promote soft engineering solutions for watershed management
within Scottish river systems

The briefing
also looked at how many beavers there were living wild, where they were,
and how long they have been there. They also considered the legal position
of the beavers, a key issue that first came up with the intention of SNH
to trap them, and which carries on unresolved to this day.

Counting
beaver

A bizarre
numbers game was then played out shortly afterwards. It was reported in
early April 2011 that an agreement to avoid trapped beavers being killed
was struck after experts had estimated there were only about 20
animals running loose in Scotland (15). The expert estimation had,
in fact, come from a statement by SNH released on 28 March 2011 (16).
Anyway, this story was based on a backtracking on the original agreement
that SNH had with the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS) which
runs Edinburgh Zoo, about the disposition of the trapped beavers. It was
revealed in a letter to SNH, dated 25 October 2010, that zoo officials had
said that they were prepared to provide temporary accommodation for
beavers and would seek new homes for them for three weeks, before culling
them if none could be found (15). The charge for culling would be "£100 plus VAT for the cost of drugs for the destruction
of each animal, and subsequent disposal of the cadaver"

An RZSS
spokeswoman explained that at the time of writing of the letter, there
were potentially an unknown number of beavers that the RZSS were going to
be asked to hold by SNH. They were willing to accommodate as many captured
beaver as resources would allow, but could not accommodate a large number
and would thus have to kill them.

When asked
about this letter, an SNH spokesman had said (15):"The suggestion that beavers may have to be put down was
made early on, after speculation that there could be more than a 100
beavers to be caught. We fully understood and accepted that the zoo had to
have a fall-back position if homes could not be found for all the beavers.
However, the hard evidence of beaver activity suggested there were at most
about 20 beavers in the wild, so we were able to agree subsequently that
euthanasia would not be necessary. We were confident that new homes could
be found"

However,
SWBG had been doing their own survey of beaver numbers, and announced
their results in April 2011 showing that there were around 15 family sites
and about a dozen individual beaver sites scattered about the catchment
(17):“On the basis of the sites surveyed, there should
be around 80 beavers now and 100 by next month, rather than the 20
reported by Scottish Natural Heritage. Not all the prime beaver habitat in
the catchment has been surveyed yet so the total may well be higher”

The Group
hoped that news of higher than expected numbers would lead to a decision
by SNH not to resume the trapping in the autumn, as the rehoming of such a
large number of animals would be difficult for Edinburgh Zoo. This news
report made SNH’s assertion of only 20 beavers look silly, but at least it
forced them to recognise the value of SWBG’s local knowledge, such that
SNH conducted some fieldwork with the Group in June 2011. Based on active
lodges and field signs, SNH then released an update where they reported
that there were possibly between 35 and 80 beavers in Tayside (18).
However, SNH were still not happy about numbers of beaver (see later).

Tay beavers
present an alternative study opportunity

It all went
quiet after that until January of this year, when the Scottish Gamekeepers
Association called on the Scottish Government to carry out further
research on the beavers before deciding whether they should be allowed to
remain in the wild (19). Apparently SNH had submitted an advisory paper to
the Scottish Government on the “escaped/illegally released beaver
population in Strathtay”, in which one option put forward was to “let
the rodents continue to roam free” (19, 20). The Association claimed
that the beavers were already causing serious problems on agricultural
land, rendering parts of fields unproductive, and damage to forestry on
river-banks. SGA spokesman Bert Burnett said (19):“There has to be a pause for thought on this because people
have no real idea as to the long term damage that could be caused to
agricultural land and to trees which are needed to bind riverbanks in many
areas, with potential threats to public homes due to the destruction of
natural flood defences…... We have armies of members who are assessing
rivers every day and could relay the necessary information. We also have
many people well versed in trapping techniques and we would be more than
happy to offer assistance”

The SWBG
prepared a detailed rebuttal of the SGA’s claims, but supported the call
for research (21). Faced with budgetary cuts, SNH was having to consider
scrapping some projects, one of which could have been release of beaver
into a new study site at Insh Marshes in the Cairngorm National Park, once
the current five-year trial at Knapdale in Argyll had completed (22).
However, as an alternative, the Group proposed that SNH should instead run
a less expensive project in Tayside, conducting some light monitoring and
surveys on the free-living Tay beavers to determine the impact of beavers
in various kinds of habitat in Scotland. Louise Ramsay for the Group said
(22):“Tay beavers offer an opportunity to extend the
work of the Knapdale trial at a fraction of the cost. The Tay beavers are
‘free beavers’ in more sense than one”

The SWBG
offered to collaborate with yet another SNH survey of beaver numbers in
the region, before a ministerial decision was made on what would happen
with the Tayside beavers. The planned start of the survey was delayed as
SNH struggled to agree upon the most appropriate methodology for
conducting it, one costly option of which could have been using
helicopters for scoping the area (23). It was reported that the results of
the survey, when it was finally carried out, were not expected to have an
influence on Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson’s decision for the
Scottish Government. As it was,
the decision pre-empted the survey when it was announced on 16 March 2012
that the Tay beavers would be left in place and monitored until the end of the Knapdale beaver trial in 2015, when a decision would be made about the
future re-introduction of beavers to Scotland as a whole (24). The
minister also signalled the setting up of a monitoring group, to be
chaired by SNH that would gather information and monitor impacts on other
wildlife and land use, as well as providing advice and practical help in
managing beavers to landowners in the area. The group was to include
amongst others, local landowners, the Tay District Salmon Fishery Board,
conservation groups including Scottish Wildlife Trust, and the Royal
Zoological Society of Scotland. SWBG will have a vital role in that
monitoring group, and its credibility will be shot without them.

The
clamour for a cull

The
decision to leave the Tay beavers in place received predictable scorn. An
article in the Daily Telegraph reflected the view of Scottish
Land and Estates that farmers would have no option but to cull beavers on
the River Tay themselves (25). The press release from Scottish Land and
Estates was an open call on its members for that cull, irrespective of the
monitoring (26):“The Minister helpfully reiterated the Scottish
Government’s interpretation of the current legal status of the Feral
Beavers, making it clear that they have no protection in law. This leaves
it open to landmanagers to use lethal force to control damage caused by
Beaver on their land”

Jonnie Hall,
National Farmers Union Scotland director of policy and regions, said the
decision to allow the beavers to remain uncontrolled and continue to
expand was disappointing (27)“Allowing this feral Tayside colony of beavers to
remain, albeit monitored, makes a mockery of that existing European beaver
reintroduction trial and may well turn out to be a regrettable decision”

The
Association of Salmon Fishery Boards said the beavers should have been
removed when their presence was first identified, but it would support the
minister’s efforts to monitor them (25, 28). However, Andrew Wallace,
Chairman of the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland added to the
pressure to cull the beaver (29):“It must be recognised that the current situation
undermines the credibility of the Knapdale trial. We support the idea that
the feral population within the Tay catchment should be managed as
suggested but believe that any animals detected outside the catchment
should be removed forthwith and without prevarication to prevent any
further spread and thus any further damage to the Knapdale trial”

The Shooting
Times had a long, reflective and informative article about the Knapdale
and Tay beavers, apparently unaware of the minister’s decision. The
article asked the question of whether it was better to accept that a
native species has returned by an unexpected route, and to make the most
of any benefits presented by the Eurasian beaver in Scotland. However, it
could not resist a pitch at providing a means of culling (30):“….as beaver numbers increase, there will be a need for
licensed control. In Scandinavian countries this is carried out by
stalking the animals at dawn and dusk, and shooting them with small
calibre centrefire rifles, as both the pelt and meat of the beaver are
highly prized. Is there not the possibility that the income generated by
beaver hunting, and beaver tourism, far outweigh any negative aspects
caused by the Eurasian beaver’s return to Scotland?

Even anglers
in England got in on the pressure for culling. The Angling Trust expressed
anger at the Scottish Government decision, and had written to Richard
Benyon, the UK minister for fisheries and the natural environment. Mark
Lloyd, chief executive, explained that they had urged him “to apply to
the European Commission for an exemption to the beaver’s European
Protected Status to allow them to be controlled and their dams to be
dismantled, should they cross the Border” (31).

Interesting
that Mark Lloyd thought the beavers had European Protected Status. Anyway,
a Scottish Government spokeswoman defended the decision to allow the
escaped beavers to remain at large, but there was the issue of culling
again (31):“Scottish ministers decided to allow the Tayside
beavers to remain in place for the time being to allow more information to
be gathered on their impact on the environment and other species. If the
beavers spread to other catchment areas they will be removed”

As you would
expect, SWBG welcomed the decision, a fitting outcome to the sixteen
months of their campaigning (32):“This is an important step and SWBG members look forward to
co-operating with stakeholders in the future management of the beavers.
Any problems can be dealt with by a range of mitigation techniques and
SWBG can provide the necessary expertise as well as information on the
biology and ecology of beavers”

The
Group’s approach to management was about solutions, such as volunteering
to help landowners protectively wrap trees, build by-pass pipe and cage
systems or install netting fences to prevent culverts being blocked
(beaver deceivers) rather than culling (33). Increasingly, though, the
continuing rhetoric around culling, led them to fear that landowners may
have been planning a secret cull of the beavers living in the wild on the
Tay, and with the approval of the authorities (34). The Scottish
Government denied the claims, a spokesman saying:"During the trial period, beavers do not have full legal protection.
However, the Scottish government believes that in most cases where there
are conflicts with land use, alternative management solutions can be found
and does not see any reason at present to support a cull of these animals"

Paul
Ramsay, Chair of SWBG had a different story to tell (35):“However, we were really amazed when two separate land management
bodies and some individual gamekeepers said that they had been encouraged
by government to kill beavers, but keep quiet about it. One told us:
‘There will likely be a cull. It will just not be announced’”

No wonder
that the SWBG news release declared that “Stories conflict” and
“It is difficult for us to know what to believe” (36). The Group
understood that there may be some places where beavers are a nuisance and
problems cannot be solved by mitigation. They called on government to
create a licensing framework that allows for relocation in such instances,
and not culling. Later on, when beavers are established in all the
suitable habitats, they would be prepared to discuss the use of
derogations to allow lethal control in the last resort, under license
(36):"But in the meantime we would like to see the Scottish
Government accept the fact that the Eurasian beaver is now reintroduced to
Scotland, and thus to UK and rise to their obligation to provide legal
protection to prevent the species being wiped out for a second time"

So how would
those derogations fit in with the protection that is given to beaver under
the EU Habitats Directive, and what is the extent of that protection
anyway?

Beaver
and the EU Habitats Directive

In terms of its
protection across the EU, beaver is a listed species in Annex II and Annex
IV of the EU Habitats Directive (37). The protection is needed because the
Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) was once widespread in Europe, but
was drastically reduced both in numbers and range by the beginning of the
20th century through over-hunting for fur, meat and castoreum (a secretion
from the scent glands) combined with loss of wetland habitats (38). A few
isolated colonies hung on in France, Germany, southern Norway, Belarus and
Russia. Conservation measures since then have contributed to the species'
recovery in Europe, including reintroductions and translocations, hunting
restrictions (beginning with a hunting ban implemented in Norway in 1845)
and habitat protection. Free-living populations of beavers are now
established or establishing in most regions of their former European
range, the main exceptions so far being Portugal, Italy, the south Balkans
and, until recently, Great Britain.

A species listed in
Annex IV of the Habitats Directive must be given strict protection
under Article 12 of the Directive, such that all forms of deliberate
capture or killing of these species in their natural range in the wild is
prohibited, as is their deliberate disturbance, and destruction of their
breeding sites or resting places (37). Some countries in the EU with
thriving populations of beavers consider that the strict protection under
Annex IV is unnecessary, and sought derogation under the very specific
conditions of Article 16 of the Directive. This does not mean that all
protection is taken away, since for those countries that have sought an
exception - Estonia, Finland Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden – beaver
is instead listed under Annex V of the Directive, which still puts a range
of responsibility on those countries for the welfare of their beaver
populations, as laid out in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Directive.

The listing of beaver in
Annex II adds a further requirement for countries to set up and maintain a
network of special areas of
conservation for the habitats in the natural range of the beaver. The
implementation of this requirement operates on a biogeographical basis
since it is unlikely that all species at risk would be found in all
locations in Europe because of the variations in habitat and climate
across such a large continent. There are nine regions identified in the
Directive (Article 1 (37): Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal,
Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic. The UK is
covered by the Atlantic region, along with the Netherlands, and Ireland.
Other countries straddle two or more regions: thus Belgium, Denmark,
France, and Germany have parts in the Atlantic as well as the Continental
region; whereas Spain and Portugal have parts in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean regions.

Reference
Lists exist for each region, and contain the Annex II species considered
to be present in
their natural range in each country, and for which special areas of conservation have to be
designated (39). The Reference Lists derive from the conclusions of
bio-geographical seminars and are updated when new scientific information
becomes available. Thus Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany,
Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia are shown in the
Reference Lists as having populations of beaver that must
have special areas of conservation (SAC) designated for where their
natural range occurs, these areas having to be protected so that the
habitat that supports the beaver is maintained. The countries that have an
exception to strict protection are not required to designate these areas
(see above) but Poland appears anyway to have assented to this
requirement.

To put this into context
for the UK, the otter (Lutra lutra) is an Annex II and Annex IV
species in the Directive, with no countries having sought exception.
Otter numbers in England and Wales declined dramatically from the mid
1950s to the late 1970s because of persecution and pesticides washing into
waterways (40). Hunting otters was banned in Britain in 1978 which,
combined with the withdrawal of organo-chlorine chemicals and the cleaning
up of waterways, led to their return to many parts of their natural range.
Thus the UK, plus 22 other countries in the EU, have otter in the
Reference Lists for Annex II species, and have designated SAC. There are
over
3,000 SAC designated for otter in amongst those states, and this
includes 11 in Scotland where the otter is the primary reason for
selection, 32 where the otter is a qualifying feature rather than a
primary reason, and 55 where it is noted in the data form for the SAC that
they are present.

Interestingly, many of the SAC designated for beaver in the EU are also
designated for otter. SNH had come across the concurrence of designation
for both otter and beaver, as they had a breakdown of numbers for beaver
SAC in Europe, which also had otter, in one of their support papers for
the re-application for a beaver license in 2008 (see Table 1 in (41)). Thus
of the nine countries that designate for beaver, only
the Netherlands has no SAC co-designated with otter, as they are currently
reintroducing otter (42).
Thus
SNH have been aware for some time that it is likely that some of the SACs
already designated for otter in Scotland will also be suitable habitat for
beaver – i.e. a part of their natural range – and that compliance with Annex
II for reinstated beaver could just be a process of adding beaver to
the designation of existing SACs. Designations of new SACs for the beaver
would not be needed. There is a SAC that is designated for otter in the
area of the free-living Tay beavers. The River Tay SAC has salmon as the
Annex II species that is a primary reason for selection, and otter are a
qualifying feature. The SAC appears to encompass many of the
known Tay beaver sites (43). It could be
argued now that the Tay beavers are sufficiently re-established in the
wild to justify consideration as qualifying features on a SAC (44).
They are certainly a better prospect than the Knapdale beavers: of the 34
beavers involved with the trial, only 11 remain in Knapdale (four are
kits) leaving 23 that have either died or disappeared (45).

Beaver
management in Bavaria

In the world
of European beaver conservation, you won’t go far without hearing about
the management of beaver in the German state of Bavaria (41, 46). Beaver
were reintroduced to Bavaria in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and have grown to
an estimated population of 12,000-14,000 animals in 3,500 territories
(47). An increasing number of beavers settled in habitats that are also
heavily used by humans, and so from 1996 a system of beaver management
began to evolve in Bavaria where beavers were trapped and removed if
man-beaver conflicts could not be solved by technical means or by
compensation for damage (48). A total of 283 beavers were trapped between
1996 and 2000, and were mainly used for reintroductions in other
countries, such as Croatia, Hungary and Romania.

Two
full-time beaver managers are employed by the Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation in Bavaria (49). In about 10% of their casework they have to
remove the beavers if mitigation measures such as bypass pipes, cages etc. are not effective. It is said
that about 500 beavers per year are removed (about 4% of the total
population) most of which are killed, as the opportunities to use them in
reintroduction projects have become fewer (41, 46, 50). It is this
apparently lawful beaver trapping and killing, in spite of beaver being
strictly protected, that attracts those bent on culling the Tay beavers.
They should not be so quick to jump on the example of Bavaria as the
panacea for their blood lust. This needs some explaining.

Protected
area and species legislation in Germany exists at Länder (states) level
as well as national level, both of which incorporate the requirements of
the Habitats Directive. Thus Article 44(1) in the Federal Law on Nature
Protection and Landscape Protection 2009, pretty much follows Article 12
of the Habitats Directive in terms of strict protection for specially
protected fauna and flora species, such that it is prohibited (51):1- to pursue, capture, injure or kill wild animals of specially
protected species, or to take from the wild, damage or destroy their
developmental stages,
2- to significantly disturb wild animals of strictly protected species and
of European bird species during their breeding, rearing, moulting,
hibernation and migration periods; a disturbance shall be deemed
significant if it causes the conservation status of the local population
of a species to worsen,
3- to take from the wild, damage or destroy breeding or resting sites of
wild animals

However,
Article 45(7) allows for the legislation of the Länder to have exceptions
from the prohibitions of Article 44(1), in individual cases, in order to
prevent considerable damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water
resources or other considerable economic damage, in the interest of public
health, public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding
public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. An
exception may only be granted if no reasonable alternatives exist, and the
conservation status of a species' population is not put at risk. This “get
out” is sanctioned (and in similar language) to Article 16 in the Habitats
Directive.

Articles 20
to 24 of Bavaria’s Nature Protection Law 2011 cover protection of SACs
(Part 4
Protection of the European ecological network "Natura 2000", the legal
protection of habitats
(52)). The Bavarian state government has taken advantage of an exception
by adopting a Regulation on the granting of exceptions of the protection
rules for specially protected animal and plant species, 2008 (53). Article
2 Exceptions for beaver allows for exception from Article 44(1) 1, 2, 3 of
the national legislation above so that in order to eliminate serious
economic damage, as well as for reasons of public security, beaver can be
trapped and killed between 1 September and 15 March, and beaver dams and
unoccupied lodges can be removed.

These
exceptions are only allowed at treatment plants, water channels in engine
power plants and threatened dam and flood protection facilities such as
storage dams, dikes and dams. There is also some provision for exception
around fish ponds, irrigation and drainage ditches, as well as public
roads. Effort must be made to find alternative means to the measures
allowed under the exceptions. Persons carrying out the measures have
to be knowledgeable and appointed by the Bavarian State Office for
Environment. The type of weapon and ammunition is specified, and full
information has to be recorded for the State Office on the location and
numbers of beaver taken and killed, and of their disposal. The
exceptions do not apply in nature reserves, national parks, nor SAC.
In addition, the Regulations are time-limited, running out in 2013. It
would seem they replaced a prior regulation from 1994, and an ordinance
from 2004, and thus require periodic re-application to remain in place.

The
exceptions taken by the Bavarian State government do not exempt them from
the requirement to designate SACs for beaver, as they are required to do
under Annex II of the Habitats Directive. Their effect is directed towards
exceptions to the requirements for strict protection under Annex IV, but
even then the exceptions have no power in designated protected areas, and
particularly in SACs irrespective of whether they are designated for
beaver. I do not think it likely that the UK, at the outset of reinstating
beaver to its natural range, could ever hope to justify derogation under
Article 16 of the Habitats Directive to avoid strict protection,
nor could it justify the tightly
crafted measures of the limited Bavarian exceptions, which even then do not apply
to beaver in protected areas like SACs. Thus in a Scottish situation, those
limited exceptions
would not allow culling within the River Tay SAC if beaver were a
qualifying feature there, and that is where the free-living Tay beaver are. Moreover, the challenges that one
hundred beaver present on the Tay at the moment are a bit different to
that of 12,000. It would
thus be a foolish farmer or land owner who took a shot at one of the
beavers when their legal position under the Habitats Directive would still
seem to suggest that they are strictly protected, now that the ownership of the
original beaver can no longer be traced, such that they are detached from
that original ownership (res nullius) and the resulting progeny are
free-living and wild.

(41) Beaver
reintroduction. Summary update on the European experience. Document 4,
Trial reintroduction of European beaver to Knapdale Forest – Advice and
Recommendations to the Scottish Government by Scottish Natural Heritage, 8
May 2008